Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 1 · column 7 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
ordinance, Fitzgerald maintained that this issue was not subject to decision in a certiorari proceeding. “Law does not provide for the BZA to make a deterimination on the validity of criteria for judging special use permits and so this question is not subject to review in certiorari proceedings,” and therefore, not grounds for intervention by the Supervisors, he said.
Speaking in favor of the petition to intervene, ski area attorney Douglas Baumgardner stated that the Supervisors have a direct interest in the outcome of litigation challenging the constitutionality of Rappahannock’s zoning ordinance.
He also maintained that the intervention petition’s allegation that the BZA acted outside its authority in considering the special use permit application gave the Supervisors standing as aggrieved party.
Baumgardner added that Circuit Court Judge Raynor V. Snead had allowed the Rappahannock Supervisors to intervene in another case brought against the BZA. Certainly Aggrieved
“The Board of Supervisors is certainly an aggrieved party when the constitutionality of the zoning ordinance is attacked...when damages are demanded...when the Board of Zoning Appeals exceeds its authority,” countered Davis. “1 don’t know how the Board of Supervisors could be more aggrieved than by an administrative body (of local government) acting beyond its authority,” he said.
He described the BZA’s denial of the ski area's special use permit application as “contrary to the
90.4%